Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

New Clause 5 - Eurotunnel

'(1) Part 1 shall not apply to Eurotunnel. Any channel tunnel accident investigation should be undertaken by the body established under subsection 2 below. 
 (2) An international body shall be established to investigate accidents in the channel tunnel'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made [this day]: That the clause be read a Second time.

Jimmy Hood: Due to the progress made by the Committee, I have issued a revised Chairman's selection list, which clarifies the selection of amendments up to schedule 5. I understand that some members of the Committee were feeling claustrophobic earlier. I can confirm that next week our sittings will be in Room 11.

Don Foster: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I begin again. I was intervening on the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who had suggested that the new clause would apply to the various operators of the channel tunnel—Eurostar, Le Shuttle and so forth. Is that what she meant, or does it apply only to activities within the tunnel? Secondly, what would be the implication of the treaty of Canterbury for the second part of the new clause?

Anne McIntosh: I hope that that will be made clear by my speaking to the new clause and the Under-Secretary's response to it. The questions put by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) are a helpful contribution.
 In moving the new clause, I should admit to an error in respect of 
''Part 1 shall not apply to Eurotunnel''.
 Of course, I meant the channel tunnel. I refer again to the wide-ranging consultations on the proposals. Members of the Committee may recall that a fire broke out in the channel tunnel in November 1996. The regulator, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, carried out the inquiry, and it remains the authority for tunnel accidents or incidents. The new clause attempts to fill a gap in the Bill, which refers neither to the inclusion nor exclusion of the channel tunnel. 
 It is generally felt that any new investigating body should be equipped with suitably qualified professionals, with appropriate experience to deal with the tunnel. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the rail accident investigation branch might be involved in the investigation of future accidents in the channel tunnel and that the people conducting the investigation would have the requisite experience? 
 I anticipate him saying that the RAIB will not have jurisdiction to investigate channel tunnel accidents, simply because no branch in this country could be permitted to carry out investigation of the French half of the system, or have the right to require French nationals to give evidence. The relevant part of the Bill covers properties of the United Kingdom, but could not possibly stretch to properties of another independent sovereign territory.

John Randall: With her extensive knowledge of matters European, does my hon. Friend know whether a body equivalent to the RAIB exists on the other side of the channel?

Anne McIntosh: My extensive knowledge is not so extensive after all. Perhaps someone here today could put us out of our misery. My hon. Friend has touched on the question. Surely it must be right that the rail accident investigation branch will not be given a duty or a right to investigate tunnel accidents. The right approach in any conceivable circumstance would be to give the task of channel tunnel investigation to a suitable bi-national tunnel accident investigation body. I would be mildly surprised if such a body did not already exist. I believe that that responsibility is already given to the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority under article 2(1)(c) of the treaty of Canterbury. In those circumstances, we question the need for the rail accident investigation branch to have any direct responsibility for investigating tunnel incidents, although there may be a case for co-opting RAIB experts to assist with an investigation. This part of the Bill would allow for that, as would article 2(6) of the treaty.
 This is a probing new clause. Will the Minister confirm that the RAIB will not amend the treaty of Canterbury, that this part of the Bill will not give powers to any RAIB inspector or investigator to investigate such incidents, and that any such investigation will be given to a bi-national body? I am sure that we would not wish to have French inspectors crawling over our side of the channel tunnel other than under arrangements already agreed—having been born a Scot, I am obviously more tolerant. This is a possible omission in the Bill and clarification would be helpful.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady has done the Committee a great service by moving this new clause, notwithstanding the typographical errors it contains. I have some concern with proposed subsection (2).

Anne McIntosh: In the spirit of generosity that has reigned supreme in the first week of the Committee, I point out that the hon. Gentleman's party has admitted to typographical errors, as have the Government. I did not wish to be left out.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is right: there has been a great deal of good humour in the Committee and a willingness to admit to errors where they have occurred. It is apposite that that the score is 1-1-1 so far. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause refers to the establishment of a new international body. As the hon. Lady said, there is already a body, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which was established under the treaty of Canterbury, which was signed on
 12 February 1986. It is our view that the most appropriate way forward would be to allow that body to continue to take responsibility for the investigation of accidents or incidents that occur within the confines of the channel tunnel. That will mean, perhaps to the hon. Lady's chagrin, that French investigators will be crawling over parts of the tunnel within the United Kingdom.
 I believe that the arrangement has worked well, as has been demonstrated clearly by the investigation into the fire to which the hon. Lady referred. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that it is the Government's intention for those arrangements to continue. Will the Under-Secretary of State give us an absolute assurance that the continuation of the existing Channel Tunnel Safety Authority would not prevent one or more RAIB investigators from taking part in an investigation? Secondly, will he give an assurance that current arrangements for the reporting of investigations into the channel tunnel will continue and that we can expect copies of reports to be sent to the RAIB, so that it can learn any relevant lessons? 
 As members of the Committee will be aware, the channel tunnel police, who are part of Kent constabulary, are also quite properly involved in investigations. It may be more appropriate to debate that when we reach the provisions on a new structure for the British Transport police, but can the Minister give us some advance notice of the changes he envisages for the channel tunnel police? 
 Broadly speaking, we cannot support the new clause as it stands. The hon. Member for Vale of York said that it was a probing measure. However, I want it placed firmly on the record that we believe that the arrangements for investigating incidents and accidents within the channel tunnel should remain as now. 
 Mr. Hood, I asked your co-Chairman on a point of order what would happen if the new clause were successful. Clause 13 states: 
''This Part extends to the whole of the United Kingdom'',
 albeit with a couple of specified exceptions. If investigations into accidents in the channel tunnel continue to be carried out by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, a part of the United Kingdom is being excluded. We were told that the problem would be sorted out on Report. If the new clause is unsuccessful and the Under-Secretary assures us that the current arrangements will continue, would not an additional amendment be required to deal with a further exception in clause 13? The Under-Secretary might like to respond to that, too.

Jimmy Hood: I assume that the Under-Secretary will have checked the matter since it was first mentioned in Committee. If so, I invite him to clarify the position. If he has not checked it, I invite him to do so and report back later.

David Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Hood.
 This has been one of those interesting occasions when an Opposition Member moves a new clause, speaks in favour of it and then against it. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) told the hon. Member for Vale of York that the measure was deficient in any case. You were not present this morning, Mr. Hood, so I thought that I would enlighten you. The hon. Lady virtually made my speech for me, which was kind of her. Yesterday, we had the hon. Member for Bath doing his ''Just a Minute'' bit, and today we have had ''Whose Line Is It Anyway?'' from the hon. Lady. 
 This morning, the hon. Lady talked us through the merits of the channel tunnel, not to mention her various interests in that and other matters. I find it extraordinary that her new clause would establish yet another body. An international body—the Intergovernmental Commission—already exists, following the treaty of Canterbury of 1986. It was established on behalf of the Governments of France and Britain to oversee all matters relating to the operation of the channel tunnel. The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which was established by the same treaty, advises and assists the Intergovernmental Commission on all matters relating to the safety of the tunnel. Its functions include investigating incidents that affect safety in the tunnel, which by its very nature may often require specialist expertise. 
 The treaty empowers both bodies to invoke the assistance of any body or expert of their choice for the purpose of carrying out their functions. Under the provisions, the rail accident investigation branch could offer assistance to the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, the Intergovernmental Commission or the French Government. We do not intend the rail accident investigation branch to have a duty or discretion to investigate in the tunnel, as regulations made under clause 2 would make clear. It could, however, undertake an investigation for any of those authorities if they requested it. 
 The new clause would preclude the intergovernmental commission or the CTSA from seeking any assistance from the RAIB—a body of people that may be extremely well equipped to give such extra assistance. 
 The hon. Member for Bath asked whether the RAIB would be precluded from help. From what I just said, the answer is obviously no. He asked about the current arrangements for reporting accidents and asked whether copies would be available to the RAIB. Yes, they will. He also asked about any changes in relationships in the policing of the channel tunnel. There will be no changes in the relationships, which will be governed by the existing non-statutory protocols. The UK half of the tunnel is still, of course, in the UK. The CTSA will investigate in the tunnel. The RAIB regulations will carve out the tunnel so that there is no role for the RAIB in the tunnel unless it is invited to have one. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the French side of the tunnel. The European Commission 
 railway safety directive will require the French Government to set up a body similar to the RAIB.

Don Foster: I am sorry to be so pernickety, as I am aware that the total area covered by the UK side of the tunnel is relatively small. Nevertheless, the Minister just said that we will carve it out of the area of operation for the RAIB. I therefore ask him again how the Government intend to correct what is clearly an error in clause 13.

David Jamieson: I referred to clause 13 and the role of the British Transport police. It might be more appropriate for us to discuss the issue later.

Don Foster: Perhaps I should help the Minister by pointing out that clause 13 specifically refers to the extent of coverage of this part of the Bill on the work of RAIB. The Minister told us categorically that the RAIB will not operate in the tunnel on the UK side. An exclusion must therefore be added to clause 13(1).

David Jamieson: I apologise. I was looking at another amendment. This is not an error, typographical or otherwise. The regulations under clause 2 will deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Anne McIntosh: The Under-Secretary has confirmed why there is a need for a probing amendment. As the hon. Member for Bath said, a more specific exclusion should be added to clause 13. I do not disagree with what the Under-Secretary said, but I am concerned to hear that an important EU rail safety directorate is being considered that may amend a directive in which I would have been involved and in which I maintain a close interest, as you would expect, Mr. Hood, since you wear another hat as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I am concerned that we are discussing a Bill that will be affected by a subsequent adoption of a European rail safety directive, and had I not tabled the new clause, we would not have heard about it. I hope that there will be opportunities to discuss the matter, perhaps in the European Scrutiny Committee. It has been proved adequately that clause 13 is defective, and we retain the right to return to the point later.

Don Foster: While the hon. Lady has been speaking, I have had an opportunity to examine clause 2, which is where the Minister said that the solution to the dilemma might lie. Knowing the Bill as well as she does, the hon. Lady will know that clause 2(2)(b) refers to the ability to
''make provision about circumstances in which an accident or incident is to be or not to be treated as being relevant to the operation of a railway for the purposes of this Part''.
 The Minister will undoubtedly tell us that if the accident or incident happens in the Channel tunnel, that is part of the relevant set of circumstances. However, if that is the Government's argument, why do we bother with the other exemptions in clause 13? Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have got it wrong and that the paragraph that I quoted is a fig leaf that the Minister is using to try to cover it up?

Anne McIntosh: I have been accused of speaking for the Government twice today, but it is not my position to do so. I recall that the Minister for Transport said in the context of clause 2 that the European rail safety
 directive is precisely the reason why nothing has been adopted. The Government did not know what definition the European Parliament, European Commission and Council of Ministers would choose. I am not a Eurosceptic; nothing could be further from the truth.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady made some slighting remarks about the French.

Anne McIntosh: Since the place of my birth and France are two of the closest allies, I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest about that point.
 I am making a serious point. We wanted to scrutinise the clauses in part 1 as comprehensively and successfully as possible, and it would be helpful to have had more discussion about the implications for clauses 2 and 13 of the European rail safety directive. There may be another opportunity at a later stage to return to the point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 - Establishment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: We turn now to part 2 of the Bill, which appears a rather innocent beast—I would almost, but not quite, call it a cheeky little number. Clause 14 refers simply to the establishment of the office of rail regulation:
''There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Office of Rail Regulation . . . Schedule 1 (which makes provision about the Office) shall have effect.''
 I refer the Committee to the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading: 
''Part 2 provides that the Office of the Rail Regulator should be restructured. The rail regulator is working well, but we want to take this opportunity to bring the railways into line with other regulated industries, replacing the individual regulator with a regulatory board, which is consistent with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force.
The Bill restructures the existing Office of the Rail Regulator, creates a statutory regulatory board in place of the regulator, building on the existing advisory board that he already has, and enables a wide range of experience and views to be brought to decision making. We will not make the change before mid–2004, which will enable the regulator to complete the useful work that he is doing in reviewing access charges.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 772–3.]
 I record my enormous admiration for the rail regulator, who has been put through trying circumstances recently. I have a question for the Minister for Transport about the sequence in which the Government intend to implement the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force. Is the rail regulator being taken in sequence with the gas industry, the electricity industry and all the others, or is the rail regulator being taken out of turn, perhaps as a one-off? I ask that because it became a real issue to those of us who followed the scenario of Railtrack going into administration. 
 The former Secretary of State for Transport—the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)—went on the record by giving evidence to the former 
 Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee. He said, under the heading ''Ev 104'': 
''It is for Parliament to decide the role and the responsibility of a regulator . . . whatever structure we come up with after administration there will be a need for independent, economic regulation.''
 The Opposition are concerned, because the present rail regulator, who I hope will be allowed to serve out his term if the changes are not introduced before 2004, is a gentleman of the utmost integrity, who has shown in the most testing circumstances that he is fully independent of the Government of the day. We are concerned that the independence of the economic regulator, and therefore the economic regulation, of the rail sector is being compromised by this sweeping change, which I think is not in kilter with what is happening in the other regulated industries, such as gas, in sectors that are equally subject to the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force. The rail regulator has been singled out. 
 Under Ev 88 on 7 November 2001, the regulator, Mr. Winsor, told the Select Committee: 
''My independence can only be taken away by Parliament and Parliament has not done that.''
 This is the first opportunity that the Government have had to weaken the independence of the rail regulator, although that independence has worked extremely well. For that reason, I believe that the Bill is regrettable. 
 Clause 14, which sets out its provisions very simply, and the whole of part 2—we will come to schedule 1 in due course, under which functions are transferred—raises a number of questions to which we alluded earlier, and it would be appropriate to consider them now. What is the relationship between the new Office of Rail Regulation and other bodies? As the Committee will know, the Strategic Rail Authority, the rail regulator and the health and safety commissioner—the three pillars of railway regulation in Great Britain—are expected to work together to ensure that the railways are run safely and in the public interest, for effective and accountable regulation. The relative jurisdiction of the regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority, and the possibility of overlap, have also been issues.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am listening with interest. The hon. Lady suggests that regulators in the railway sector are becoming less significant. Regulators are established in naturally monopolistic industries, which were formerly publicly owned, in order to replace accountability to Parliament and the Government. Therefore, as the railway industry comes back towards Government and public ownership—I welcome that—is not it likely that the need for that kind of regulation will diminish?

Anne McIntosh: I will not rise to that challenge and say whether I think that there should be a return to a total monopoly of the railways, whereby just one provider supplies train services. Nor shall I say whether I would rather have a separate rail network that looks after the track. Even under the revised
 structure that the Government propose, the Office of Rail Regulation, albeit supported by a board, will remain as, if not more, important as it is now, given how powerful the Strategic Rail Authority has become. The SRA said in December that its targets would be met, then reversed the announcement in January. However, I do not want to stray too far from my point.
 The relative jurisdiction of the regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority and the possibility of overlap have been issues since the mid–1990s, when the structure was first set up under the Railways Act 1993. When the Government came to power, they passed the Transport Act 2000, which made an effort to rationalise the two roles. However, the Government were still not happy, and felt that the situation was inconclusive. 
 When Railtrack was put into administration, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North, announced that he planned to legislate when parliamentary time allowed—it seems that this is the first available occasion—to rationalise the regulatory structure to provide a stronger strategic direction. He also wanted to reduce the burdens of day-to-day interference in the industry, and the self-defeating system of penalties and compensation. We were told that that would deliver clearer accountability and end perverse incentives. 
 The proposals for reform in clause 14 and part 2 were put out to consultation in October 2002, but in a limited form. Only one change was proposed, and that was to establish a statutory regulatory board that would have all the powers currently exercised by the rail regulator. Part 2 and schedule 1 provide for that regulatory board. A further question is raised about the jurisdiction of the Bill. This part of the Bill applies to England and Wales and to Scotland but is not intended to extend to Northern Ireland. It would be helpful to know why that is so. 
 The full extent of the amendments that the Government propose is not immediately clear from the very limited drafting. The rail regulator helped the Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, and I think that he can help us to understand the fundamental relationships in the railway industry. The report states—

Jimmy Hood: Order. I do not want to restrain the hon. Lady too much, but it is a stand part debate on clause 14. She has been tempted into discussing amendments from the next debate. May I ask her to return to clause 14 stand part?

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful, Mr. Hood. My point is pertinent to the Bill, because the clause says:
''There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Office of Rail Regulation.''
 I want to find out the extent of that body corporate, without discussing any of the functions, which we will have ample opportunity to consider subsequently. Can the Minister explain where the Office of Rail Regulation will interface between the train-operating companies as the provider of the private sector funds and the Treasury as the provider of the public sector funds? 
 The fundamental point that I wish to raise in connection with the clause is not terribly complicated. To what extent will the Government's amendments strengthen the independence of the rail regulator? The Opposition have a deep-seated fear about that, having seen how the present occupant of the Office of the Rail Regulator has demonstrated his integrity, his independence and his ability to stick within his established office and the rules that set it up. How does the Minister think that the clause will enhance the independence of the regulation of the railway sector? Why is the railway industry being singled out in this way as the pioneer for the better regulation taskforce?

Don Foster: I fear, looking around the Room, that I may be occupying the crease but briefly.
 First, may I place it firmly on the record that my party fully supports the proposals to establish the Office of Rail Regulation? Secondly, we do not believe that the move is a guinea pig measure for the Better Regulation Task Force, as it is the only regulator that has not already got a board or has plans to put a board in place. The proposal brings the rail regulator in line with all other regulators in the system. 
 Thirdly, when the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) spoke on Second Reading he was completely wrong even to imply that the establishment of the Office of Rail Regulation was a means of the Government getting their own back on the individual who holds the current Office of Rail Regulator. Many of us are aware of the difficult relationships that have existed in the rail industry involving the current holder of the post, but many believe that he has done an extremely good job and has fought hard for what he believes to be right. That does not mean to say that it is not right to move forward in establishing the Office of Rail Regulation. 
 I also place on the record my huge disappointment that neither this nor subsequent clauses honours the pledge given by the former Secretary of State in relation to future plans for the regulatory regime. As I reminded the House on Second Reading, when the former Secretary of State announced his intention to turn Railtrack into a not-for-profit public interest company, he said categorically that it 
''would need far less intense regulation. We therefore intend to streamline the existing structure''.—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 956.]
 There is nothing in the proposals that would streamline the regulatory machinery. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York who was a member of the Transport Committee will be well aware that in its first report of the 2001–02 session, published on 23 January 2002, the Committee argued strenuously in the light of the commitment made by the former Secretary of State for a more streamlined regulatory system. It stated: 
''While the need for an independent economic regulator with clearly defined responsibilities, duties and objectives will continue, the respective roles of the Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority should be reviewed.''
 The Select Committee made a very clear recommendation, and I regret that in this and 
 subsequent clauses an opportunity has not been taken to review the respective roles of the Office of Rail Regulation and the Strategic Rail Authority. Notwithstanding those two major concerns, the broad principle of the establishment of such a board is welcome on the Liberal Democrat Benches. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Office of rail regulation

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in
schedule 1, page 49, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(2A) In appointing members, the Secretary of State will have regards to regional representation.'.
 The amendment relates to the vexed question of reserved and devolved matters in relation to the Scottish jurisdiction. The schedule does not allow for any form of regional representation, and that is important, as there will be queries about the role and jurisdiction of the Office of Rail Regulation. I hope that someone will be responsible for securing a degree of representation in that regard by adding a new subsection to schedule 1.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Lady explain how the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive would be affected by the powers that she wants to confer on the Scottish Minister?

Anne McIntosh: I hope that the Under-Secretary or the Minister will explain the relationship with the Scottish Executive because the Bill is not entirely clear about it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) has had a chance to read Hansard containing the Under-Secretary's answer to the question I referred to this morning.

Mark Lazarowicz: I assure the hon. Lady that I have read the comments in Hansard to which she referred. As we are debating her proposal, however, will she tell the Committee how the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive, which is responsible for most of the passenger services in Scotland, would be affected? It is important for hon. Members such as myself, who represent Scottish interests, to understand that.

Anne McIntosh: It is not for me to usurp the Government's position. The Under-Secretary will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question and will take the opportunity to respond to it. Both the Under-Secretary and the Minister have told me several times that I should not usurp the Government's position, today or any other day, in Committee. I have explained the purpose of this probing amendment, and I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's response.

David Jamieson: There is no disagreement on the importance of properly reflecting regional interests in railway policy, but the amendment is not the way to
 achieve it. It would put the independence of economic regulation at risk and cause confusion between the respective roles of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of Rail Regulation.
 Let me detain the Committee a few moments to provide more detail. Broadly, the Strategic Rail Authority's role is to set policy and the Office of Rail Regulation's role is to ensure the fair implementation of that policy. Regional representation is appropriate for a policy body such as the Strategic Rail Authority, which is catered for in section 202(3) of the Transport Act 2000. In contrast, representation by regional interest is inappropriate for the Office of Rail Regulation. All appointments should be made on the basis of expertise and merit alone to reinforce the independence of the economic regulatory function.

Don Foster: I fully understand the Minister's concern that allowing some conditions would lead to others. He referred to selection on the basis of expertise, so will he give us an idea of the range of expertise likely to be sought by the Secretary of State in appointing people to serve on the board?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted what I was about to say in a few moments.

Don Foster: I like to help.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman always like to help, but on this occasion he has helped to detain the Committee from receiving an answer to the question that he put to me.
 Having representative members of any interest, section or region in the country could call the independence of the body into question, but it is not only a matter of independence. An Office of Rail Regulation board member appointed to cover a sectional interest would start second-guessing railway policy in trying to serve that constituency. That would lead to confusion about who has the policy lead in the railway industry. 
 That is all set out in the consultation document sent out to interested parties in November. Responses came from across the industry, and there was a strong desire for members of the regulatory board to have appropriate expertise and to be independent. Only a handful of responses suggested regional or sectional representation, and although people from various parts of the United Kingdom may sit on the board, it will not be out of necessity. There is also a practical consideration. The Office of Rail Regulation covers Scotland, Wales and England. To have a representative from each country and English region would make the board unmanageably large, particularly as room has to be made for economists, industry experts, executive members and so on. That should answer the point of the hon. Member for Bath. However, to be selective could create concerns among the countries and regions not represented on the board. 
Mr. Foster rose—

David Jamieson: I see that I have tempted the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster: The Under-Secretary has tempted me. I am grateful that he has given us some examples, but I wonder whether other Committee members share my view that it is slightly odd that expertise on the railways was absent from the Under-Secretary's list.

David Jamieson: An economist may be an economist with an expertise on the railways; an industry expert could be a railway industry expert. None of the people whom I mentioned would be precluded from having railway industry expertise; indeed, one would expect them to have some interest and be able to contribute to the board. It would be strange if we appointed them and they did not have an interest in carrying out the job.
 We cannot support the amendment. Regional interests are important, but only in the appropriate place. It is for the Strategic Rail Authority and the infrastructure manager in formulating their strategies to take into account the regulatory functions to ensure that they are implemented fairly, not to second-guess them through sectional representation on the board.

Anne McIntosh: It is clearly a source of disappointment to the Opposition that the Under-Secretary does not accept our amendment, but I have some sympathy with his point, which was well made, that the board should not be too big.
 The hon. Member for Bath referred to conclusion T on page 39 of the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee report: 
''While the need for an independent economic regulator with clearly defined responsibilities, duties and objectives will continue, the respective roles of the Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority should be reviewed.''
 I referred earlier to why it was so important to set out in the Bill, preferably in schedule 1, what those roles should be. 
 The hon. Member for Bath may not have had the benefit of reading the minority report, which was put together by my hon. Friends and me. It was the first time that I was—I hope the last time, too—put in the good offices of a Clerk, who is with us today, to put together a minority report, which obviously requires a lot of work. I draw to the Committee's attention conclusion B at paragraph 26 of that report: 
''If the Strategic Rail Authority is to remain a viable force, the Government must allow the Authority to operate independently and free from Government interference. The Strategic Rail Authority must be held to its responsibility to publish an annual report and update its Strategic Plan.''
 I note for the record that the SRA published its annual report this week, and the only parliamentary vehicle by which we could consider it was a written ministerial statement. It was three lines long and simply took note of the fact that two documents—the annual report and the annexe, which I obtained from the Vote Office—remain available. That progress report should be debated if Parliament is to have any hope of ensuring that the Strategic Rail Authority remains a viable force that operates independently. 
 The debate has been useful, and the amendment has served its purpose in probing the Government and 
 eliciting a sympathetic hearing. We will obviously return to the subject later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Three o'clock till Tuesday 11 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.